NARSINGH TANEJA Vs. BRIJ KISHORE SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4/8/2006. It is contended that non -petitioner moved an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. Notice of the said application was issued however, it is alleged that it was not served on the petitioner who is a government servant and serving at Tejpur (Assam). Since ex -parte proceedings had been initiated against him without serving on him the notice through postal service, petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex -parte proceedings. Application so moved by the petitioner was allowed by the court below by the impugned -order however, while setting aside the ex -parte proceedings, petitioner was allowed to participate in the proceedings prospectively and thereby his right to submit written -statement stood implied forfeited. Against this, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents has serious objection in acceptance of the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the notices were in fact served on the petitioner and, therefore, there is no reason to allow him to file written - statement.

(3.) THE perusal of the impugned -order reveals that the learned court below had recorded a finding in para 7 as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure more specifically Order 9 Rule 11 CPC where there exist more than one defendant and out of many defendants, one defendant is not present then also, matter may be proceed and the court will pass an appropriate order at the final stage. It has further been observed that apart from defendant No. 2 i.e. the petitioner, there exist five more defendants who have also filed their written -statements and it is not correct on the part of the defendants to state that their rights are different than the other defendants. The court lastly held that the ex -parte proceedings against the defendant No. 2 were initiated only after taking note of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 11 CPC. The learned court however taking note of the fact that since defendant No. 2 has now come before the court therefore, he is permitted to participate in the proceedings irrespective of the fact that earlier order passed on 24/1/2004 be treated as if no ex - parte proceedings were initiated against the said defendant.